Planned reforms to the House of Lords

The planned reform of the House of Lords was contained in
the 1997 manifesto of the Labour Party. After
victory in the 2001 election,
the Labour Party continued with the process of reform to the Lords. In November 2001, the proposed reforms
for a new House of
Lords were released. These came about as a result of a cross-party white paper
and were seen as a way of making the Lords more of a part of a democracy.
The plans are broadly in line with what the Royal Commission chaired by Lord
Wakeham recommended.

The white paper recommended:

a second chamber of 600 membersan end to 92 hereditary peers still
in the Lords120 members elected by the public120 appointed by a statutory
independent commissionthe rest would be appointed by
political parties in proportion to votes received by a party at the
most recent general electionthe second chamber would have no
veto over government legislation - merely the right to delay its
introductionbishops to be reduced from 25 to 16a minimum of those in the second
chamber will be female; minority groups will be representedthe final tally of 600 will be met
over a 10 year period

A three months consultation period would be provided by
the government for MPís to voice their support or otherwise.

In fact, the white paper, introduced by the Leader of the
House, Robin Cook, provoked a less than enthusiastic response from both sides of
the House of Commons. 117 Labour MPís signed a Commons motion backing a mainly
elected second chamber. Robin Cook claimed that this would threaten the primacy
of the House of Commons:

"It
is impossible to think of such a chamber accepting that it could not
legislate on taxation or that it could delay legislation, not throw it
out."

The leader of the House of Lords, Lord Williams, claimed
that the proposals were fair and that Prime Minister Tony Blair had all but
given up his powers of patronage.

The shadow leader of the House of Commons, Eric Forth,
claimed that the proposals were a great disappointment:

"At
worst we will have a continuation and indeed an institutionalisation of
Tony's cronies, and the government should either withdraw the white
paper or at the very least should refer it to the joint committee of
both houses."

The Tory leader in the Lords, Lord Strathclyde stated:

"These
are shoddy proposals cooked up in the Cabinet Office over a decanter of
port, fit only to get a divided cabinet past the end of today."

The planned reforms were not well received by the
Electoral Reform Society or by Charter 88.

"....to
have a chamber in which anything less than a substantial majority of
members are elected is completely unacceptable.......the government
started the process of Lords reform in the name of democracy, but it now
appears they are reluctant to give up their powers of patronage."
Ken Ritchie, Electoral Reform Society

During
a period in which public trust in politicians is at an all-time low,
these proposals send a clear message to the public that both electors
and elections are regarded as tiresome inconveniences to be avoided
wherever possible." Chris Lawrence-Pietroni, Charter 88